Yeah there's definitely that. But the important thing is to us to keep improving and deliver better and better experiences for everyone. Not too hung up on Metacritics (well, I do gripe about it sometimes), can't really dwell on it.

As Urz said, the reviews were made back in 2012, where the game obviously had less content and was a less smooth experience.The score does not match the current game at all.

Not only that, some of the reviews seems to be written from a one hour experience, without playing with a few friends. Some feels more like a "first impressions" rather than a full review, and that is just not ok, when meta-critic scores kind of sticks(and they do have an impact on buying habits).

MUSE, you should get new reviewers to look at your game, to get a review that actually matches with what the current game has to offer.

@Fendelphi, yeah noted. With Metacritics, like Urz pointed out, there were a couple of reviews that were done before the game was released, when it was still early beta or late alpha, and there was another review where the reviewer spent very little time in game and factual errors being corrected in comments by another editor who did spend more time in game. But with Metacritic, this type of things can happen, and we just have to not dwell on it and move on. I do really appreciate the IGN review though. Without us knowing, Nathan spent over a week in game, and he really knew how to play it, and his critique (both the positives and negatives) was really fair and on point. But with any review of an online multiplayer game that is supported, what was over a year ago is not the same as what is today. This is another drawback of Metacritic and release reviews in general. But yeah, once co-op is at a state where we feel good enough to show to journalists, we'll try to get more reviewers to review game, and the reason why we will likely have to wait til co-op is ready is because journalists usually have a lot of games to get through, and it would be better use of their time to show them something new and different.

Also a thing to remember is that the user score is 8.8(which is pretty good).

Of the lower scoring reviews, some of them were due to not being able to play the game(technical issues), or because they reviewed their experience with some bad eggs instead of the game in its entirety("I didnt like the people that I played with, so the game is bad").

Anyway, your game is great, and you are doing a great job in listening to the community AND keeping true to your own visions and ideas. There is no other game out there like this one.

I don't think people trust metacritics anyway, maybe just the new generation players that are mostly potatos. The game imo deserves easy an 88 in the present stage. True players always test a game and don't trust some "professional" reviewers. All the stupid generic low skill games that hold your hand get an almost perfect score nowadays, and that tells me that those reviewers have no clue how to really examine a game. Pretty graphics and some scripted animations...so cool.

That and, in both film and games, what the critics rate well doesn't always match what the public thinks of it. How many films got panned by critics but either went on to become cult classics or just be really popular despite what the reviews said? And the same thing's happened to games. Better to look at the user scores for a game if you're going to use Metacritic at all.